Hi Curtis, I did not say anything about beliefs, or use that word in my response. If atheism is merely an absence of the *belief* in God, that is a very positive thing. God is an ongoing journey, not a being described with static values, that are then pitted against us, by comparison.
God is life, and love and infinity and everything else. All a coherent expression of universal compassion. This is all off the cuff - I have no beliefs about God, but rather describe God in the moment, as He and She is experienced. Any discussion on the basis of this belief, or that belief, is nonsense. Who cares? Experience is the only thing worth discussing. Other than that, all one does is make a case for a static thought, or as we so charmingly call it, a belief. Beliefs are for dead people. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltablues@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@ <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > Hey Curtis, I always thought it was an agnostic who doesn't know whether or > > not God exists, and that an atheist flatly denies the existence of God. > > This is a common misconception about atheism. It has to do with people's > difficulty in understanding that atheism is not a positive belief, but is the > absence of belief. So people try to fit it into their own formula of belief > systems by saying "atheists believe that there is no God." The nuances > between the positions have more to do with how equivocally they state their > opinions. > > For an atheist, all beliefs in the many Gods are equivalent to how society > views the mythologies of the Greek Gods for example. I don't believe that it > increases the probability that the God Zeus exists because a bunch of people > made up stories about him. > > And that skepticism extends to people's subjective reports of experiencing > "God". > > So an atheist more confidently states that there is no good reason for > believing in Zeus, where an agnostic might make the point that we can't know > such things with such confidence. It is more a nuance of emphasis rather > than content. > > But in neither case is it stated that one holds the position for good solid > reasons, that there could not be a God that has not been yet described by > people so far. All we know is that so far people's reasons are lacking in > epistemological merit. A standard that people are curiously eager to apply > when dealing with other people's versions of the God belief, but are unable > to apply to themselves. > > > < I am referring to atheists, not agnostics. > > > > And again, I correct your notion about what atheism is about. > > > > Atheists are those who deny their childish ideas, but have not yet advanced > > to adulthood. > > Condescending analogy aside, it is unlikely that many children have the > philosophical background necessary to understand the epistemological issues > atheists have with theist's claims. The problem of lack of reliability of > subjective knowledge and experience seems to be hard for many adults to grasp. > > > > > By this I mean, atheists do not provide themselves with enough information > > on this, they are childish in their insistence that there is no God, based > > on a lack of experience.> > > It would be hard for me to accept that you are in a position to evaluate the > subjective experiences of people who, like myself, have had a lot of exposure > to programs designed to shift your subjective experience. In fact this > exposes the crux of the issue: > > How can you say with certainty that a Moonie's subjective experience of the > divinity of the late Rev. is categorically less reliable than your own, once > you have given your own subjective experience the epistemological position of > being reliable? How can you distinguish your subjective confidence from > theirs? Or anyone else, including mine? You are assuming a superiority of > your experience that is not warranted philosophically. > > > > > A lot of confusion arises, regarding our picture of God. I do not see some > > vengeful prick in the clouds, who rewards or condemns me, according to > > interpreted moral values. > > > I thought we had dispensed with the straw man? Agreed, even thoughtful > theists reject this view of God. It is not the version of God that would be > most interesting for an atheist to challenge. However, societally, this > version is highly relevant to a voting public who believes that they are able > to discern his will and POV on gay people for example.(Spoiler alert, he is > against them having the same civil protection as straight people couples from > this POV.) > > > > > What I do recognize is an essential element within you, me and everybody, > > and everything, that is both impersonal and universally compassionate.> > > I don't doubt that those words have meaning for you but it doesn't resonate > with me. You kind of have a mix-up with the juxtaposition of "impersonal" > and "universally compassionate" for my way of understanding those words > meaningfully. Universal compassion seems to include babies being born with no > eyes sometimes, so the usefulness of the term seems diluted. Universal > compassion seems like very weak Red Bull after all the ice has melted. > > > > > We are not alone. We are this element's progeny.> > > I don't know what you are basing this assertion on but I haven't heard an > argument yet that impressed me. You are welcome to try but just asserting it > doesn't help. > > < The same ability that allows us to feel closeness to ourselves and another, > is this same essential element, expressed personally. > > > I can follow the philosophy but don't buy the necessity for this additional > universal thing. It is enough for me that we do in fact feel close to > ourselves in a reflective state of self-consciousness and are close to other > social primates within our very tiny groups by out natures. It is obviously > not a quality that effectively transcends tribal groups too well so far in > man's history, Woodstock notwithstanding. > > > > > To wonder about the existence of God, I can accept. However, both an ego > > bound denial of God, and an ego bound acceptance of God sanctified through > > religion, seem childish to me. Kind of mentally retarded, actually. > > For me the mystery is how uncorrelated these beliefs seem to a person's > intelligence. Denying that man has proposed any good reasons for believing > in any of the Gods so far is, for me, just a clear understanding of > epistemology and its understanding of the limits of human knowledge and our > propensity to believe things for bad reasons. Denying that people have > presented good reasons is no more ego bound than understanding that it is > unlikely that the Moonies are right. > > I would be interested to hear if you have formulated an understanding of why > you should be more confident of the knowledge you have gained subjectively on > such matters from other equally enthusiastically confident people asserting > different things. How can you distinguish your confidence from, for example, > a Christian who has "experienced" the living presence of Jesus Christ in > their being "born again". How can you be certain that they are definitely > wrong when they assert that this surety also gives them absolute certainty > that the formulation of divinity you are proposing, means that you have > missed the "experience" of Jesus as your personal savior, and therefor you > are dammed by your association with the impersonal Satanic God of the Hindus? > > I propose that they are over-relying on the robustness of their subjective > experience as an indicator of its epistemological solidity, and that this > tendency is present in all of us. > > We are very mentally lazy when it comes to our own notions. It is a built-in > cognitive vulnerability and it shows up in your subjectively based claims > about your preferred version of the "God" idea. > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > > > > > Favorite topic: how non-atheists misunderstand or misstate the > > > philosophical position of most atheists. > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@ <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > > > The only thing I have seen in atheists is that they were brought up > > > > with a *belief system* about God, which they now reject. OK. > > > > > > Too broad. Most adults, atheists or theists have evolved their > > > perspective on the religious beliefs they were brought up with as > > > children. I had already rejected the Catholic version of God while still > > > being an enthusiastic theist in the movement. So this is not something > > > only atheists do and is not relevant to their philosophical position. > > > > > > > > > > > Joke is on them, strutting about and proclaiming no existence of God. > > > > > > Here you betray your own emotional bias against atheists. The "strutting > > > about" is an overplayed fantasy projection on people with different > > > beliefs than you hold. Atheists may just be as committed to their own > > > world view as you are of your own. So their expressing it may be no more > > > "strutting about" than your own descriptions of your beliefs. > > > > > > The second sentence is the reason I was compelled to write. I can't > > > imagine how many times I have tried to correct this bizarre misstatement > > > of the atheist's philosophical position here. It is a straw man and a > > > pernicious one. Robin played wack-a-mole with me using this fallacious > > > position for months. But I believe that correcting it again on this > > > thread is my divinely appointed duty, so I will press the same keys again. > > > > > > Atheists do NOT proclaim "no existence of God". Atheists don't know if > > > there is a God, and believe that neither do theists. What they reject > > > are the reasons theists propose that their beliefs have substance. > > > Curiously these same reasons are rejected between the different > > > categories of theists for the same reasons atheists reject them. For > > > example it is almost universally held that the Moonies reasons for > > > believing that Sun Yung was God on earth are not good ones by all > > > non-Moonies. You don't buy their reasons for believing he was God on > > > earth do you? But to a Moonie all you would have to do is open yourself > > > to his reality and you could believe as they do. > > > > > > The issue you have with atheists is that they also don't buy your own > > > proposed reasons for your belief which you reveal below. > > > > > > > > > < All they need do, is quit thinking, just for 30 seconds, and they would > > > rediscover God with a vengeance. > > > > > > > > > Here you express your own confidence in subjective mystical experience as > > > a basis of knowledge. Most atheists don't share this confidence. It > > > seems more likely to atheists that people really suck at being able to > > > evaluate the meaning of profound ineffable subjective experience, and are > > > unduly shaped by whatever theology they buy into for their > > > interpretation. Since perception is always constructed internally by > > > conception beyond our conscious minds, atheists believe that this > > > confidence is unfounded. And if you examine your rejection of the > > > mystical "reality" experienced by Moonies of his divinity, you might > > > understand why your own subjective confidence carries so little weight > > > outside your own skull. > > > > > > > > > > > Atheists are those who deny their childish ideas, but have not yet > > > > advanced to adulthood. > > > > > > > > > > The people who do not believe as you do, have poopy pants? Duly noted. > > > I don't feel the need to return a similar insult toward theists because I > > > believe they have what they believe are good reasons for believing as > > > they do. I know i sure did when I was a theist. I just think they are > > > wrong in their conclusions about God, although in every other way might > > > be more or less intelligent and thoughtful than I am, and just as sincere > > > in their convictions. > > > > > > My own path of belief and non belief went like this: > > > > > > Born atheist. We all are. > > > > > > Conditioned into believing in Catholicism's theistic views before I had > > > any philosophical tools necessary to evaluate such claims. Began getting > > > a bit snarky about their confidence about all non Catholics burning in > > > hell at age 10, which increased and generalized into more distrust for > > > the next 6 years. First 16 years. > > > > > > Rejected the external church's view in favor of Maharishi's subjective > > > state-based belief system. I "experienced" what I believed was the > > > reality of God beyond belief. Next 15 years > > > > > > Began to question that I had an ability to reliably evaluate my own > > > subjective confidence in my experiences. Rejected subjective mystical > > > experiences as a reliable basis for belief. Rejected mystical subjective > > > experiences as a class of valued experience for about 18 years. > > > > > > Began to experiment again with meditation states as related to creative > > > trance states. I now believe that subjective states cultivated by > > > meditation have a value, but am still evaluating what that is. Now I am > > > more interested in the altered states brought about during the > > > performance of art as opposed to passive meditation as a creativity > > > enhancer. I am particularly interested in the altered states reached > > > during live musical performance as well as the quieter states reached by > > > drawing alone. I am very curious how performing a visual art would be > > > mind altered by being in front of an audience while creating, but don't > > > have the skills yet to test these ideas. Stay tuned. > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the writing prompt Jim. I always enjoy agreeing to disagree > > > with you on this topic. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seekliberation" > > > > <seekliberation@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > I wouldn't go as far as saying that creation doesn't require the > > > > > 'existence' of God, but more so it doesn't require an intricate > > > > > belief system full of moral guidelines based on our perception of > > > > > what God could, should, or would be. Creation exists regardless of > > > > > what belief system we have or don't have. It is automatic, no > > > > > beliefs required for it to exist. > > > > > > > > > > seekliberation > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > A guy climbs to a mountaintop, looks out at the beauty > > > > > > of creation, and realizes that none of it required the > > > > > > existence of a God. > > > > > > > > > > > > http://www.salon.com/2013/03/03/my_sober_conversion_to_atheism_partner/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
